Cushman v. Shinseki

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessVeterans BenefitsFifth Amendmentprocedural due processproperty interestveterans benefitsservice-connected disability

Facts

Cushman, a Vietnam veteran with a service-connected back injury, sought a total disability based on individual unemployability rating in 1977. In the record used by the Regional Office and Board, a doctor's note was altered from stating that his condition was worse and he must stop his present type of work to language suggesting he could continue if he avoided bending, stooping, and lifting, and an additional notation was inserted. The altered entry was the most recent medical note and the only medical evidence directly addressing his current employability. Cushman later discovered the discrepancy, and the DVA confirmed that the official outpatient-clinic record was the unaltered version.

Issue

Whether a veteran applying for service-connected disability benefits has a protected property interest entitling him to due process in the adjudication of his claim, and if so, whether consideration of a materially altered medical record denied Cushman a fundamentally fair hearing. The court also addressed whether the asserted errors independently warranted relief under the CUE standard.

Rule

A veteran alleging a service-connected disability has a protected property interest in statutorily mandated disability benefits and therefore a Fifth Amendment right to fundamentally fair adjudication of his claim. Due process is violated when materially altered evidence is considered in adjudicating the claim and there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different absent the alteration.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Patel applies for a statutorily defined service-connected disability benefit from the Department of Military Claims. The statute requires payment to any applicant who proves the listed eligibility criteria, and agency officials have no authority to deny a qualified claim for policy reasons.

If Nora argues that the Fifth Amendment entitled her to fundamentally fair adjudication of her application, which is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority held that applicants for veterans disability benefits have a protected property interest when the benefit is nondiscretionary and statutorily mandated for qualified individuals. The key distinction is between a legitimate claim of entitlement and a mere unilateral expectation. Because the hypothetical statute gives qualified applicants an absolute right to benefits, due process protections attach at the application stage.